check_services_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior. It implies a read-only check but introduces ambiguity with 'collection/schema auto-creation status' – it's unclear if the tool triggers creation or merely reports status. It does not disclose side effects, failure modes, or permissions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences, immediately front-loaded with the primary purpose and a parameter tip. No fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple health-check tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the core purpose and parameter. However, it lacks details on return values or response structure, and the auto-creation ambiguity leaves some contextual gaps. Adequate but not comprehensive.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents the 'detailed' parameter. The description adds a minor usage note ('Use detailed=true for protocol, latency, and other detailed info') but largely repeats schema information. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool checks connection status of RAG and Memory servers and verifies server availability and collection/schema auto-creation status. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_connection_info.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only usage instruction is about the 'detailed' parameter, not about selection context. No mention of exclusions or preferred scenarios.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.